Initially I couldn't find it at Mouser because I was searching ES9822PRO. However now that you mentioned it, I found it by searching ES9822.
I could use that one, but honestly, the source is not going to be that good anyway. What do you mean "fragile"?
Just audio, it just seems like 20dB extra for basically the same cost is worth having.
I do not mind high DNR, don't get me wrong.
Although I'm convinced that 10dB better or worse, will be irrelevant to the actual sound performance of any such project.
The main worry would be to not get carried away with that all-SMD stuff, because then the fun of DIY goes down the drain for most if not all..
Plus, with these tiny boards and parts, how on earth you'll be able to fit a big old PIO input capacitor?
Or use a nice metal case opamp?
Etc etc..
Although I'm convinced that 10dB better or worse, will be irrelevant to the actual sound performance of any such project.
The main worry would be to not get carried away with that all-SMD stuff, because then the fun of DIY goes down the drain for most if not all..
Plus, with these tiny boards and parts, how on earth you'll be able to fit a big old PIO input capacitor?
Or use a nice metal case opamp?
Etc etc..
Uwe Beis AD24QS ADC (unfortunately unavailable today), is probably the only and maybe the last DIY audio-ADC that was through-hole (apart from the actual ICs).
That by itself, made it a great candidate for an audiophile device.
To be tweaked according to one's taste.
But even in that case, although Beis had offered a very nice quality PCB, the space was limited to fit (or de-solder!) larger components.
It made it pretty hard to figure ways to fit anything else, than the recommended ceramic capacitors and standard electrolytics (at critical positions like the audio inputs).
But, it was still possible, exaclty because it was NOT using dreadful SMD parts.
Here is Uwe's ADC with selected parts (Dale resistors, Wima caps, Styroflex caps etc) and powered with optional, dual-voltage, linear PSU:
Underneath, was the only space to fit better caps:
That by itself, made it a great candidate for an audiophile device.
To be tweaked according to one's taste.
But even in that case, although Beis had offered a very nice quality PCB, the space was limited to fit (or de-solder!) larger components.
It made it pretty hard to figure ways to fit anything else, than the recommended ceramic capacitors and standard electrolytics (at critical positions like the audio inputs).
But, it was still possible, exaclty because it was NOT using dreadful SMD parts.
Here is Uwe's ADC with selected parts (Dale resistors, Wima caps, Styroflex caps etc) and powered with optional, dual-voltage, linear PSU:
Underneath, was the only space to fit better caps:
Last edited:
For reasons unknown to me couple of them have failed unexpectedly despite having protection diodes on inputs.
I believe you.
But, It happens quite often.
Some don't care to audition them and if it measures good, it must be good.
End of a happy story.
Others are not convinced yet and evaluate gear by auditioning them with their ears.
If it sounds good that's what's paramount and they read lab results with amazement.
As to the reasons why all that happens, I really can't explain it.
Anyway, I will post a couple of recordings for anyone interested to listen and compare.
It is the same record track, played with the exact same equipment.
One is recorded with the Behringer UMC204HD (with electrolytic input capacitors bypassed with a film cap).
The other is recording using the AD24QS as seen in the pictures above (bypassed input capacitors and selected parts).
Both files were recorded at 24bit/96kHz and are gain-matched to 0.1dB accuracy.
If you want to do the comparison correctly, I suggest you use free player Foobar2000 with a free plugin called ABX Comparator so you can switch to A/B tracks on the fly.
At least that's how I do it, because for me it's impossible to compare them just by memory.
Buena Vista Social Club - C1 - Behringer UMC204HD
Buena Vista Social Club - C1 - Uwe Beis AD24QS
Last edited:
You should also show us the loopback measurements from both equipment (using same signal source). Without those it is just a guessing game.
Also might be useful to read this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ringer-umc204-hd-audio-interface-review.9856/
The ADC seems to be at "Sound Blaster" level.
Also might be useful to read this: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ringer-umc204-hd-audio-interface-review.9856/
The ADC seems to be at "Sound Blaster" level.
Last edited:
Guessing game?
What are you looking to guess exactly?
If you read my previous post, you'll hopefully understand that there isn't anything to guess.
If you think there is a difference in sound it you should also check that there is not a noticeable difference in measurements. Otherwise you are just guessing what is the cause for the difference in sound.
I posted the files for anyone interested in auditioning them.
Did you listen to the files?
I guess not.
Anyway, thanks for the advice, but I don't really care why it sounds different (i am not a researcher).
I just try parts, then record and listen with my own ears.
If I like the end result, I leave them on. If not I replace them.
Last edited:
If there is a difference in measurements, how would someone know when those measurements are the whole story about why the sound is different? What if there is no difference in measurements but two sounds are completely different? One of the more striking demonstrations of that which almost anyone should be able to hear: https://purifi-audio.com/2019/12/07/amfm/ What does that say about the predictive value of typical measurements?
This is fine for a frequency response profile.
However, there are more aspects in audio which are not affected by EQ.
Last edited:
Perhaps you know somethings I don't.
However, I'm more inclined to think that I'm leading myself into a pointless conservation.
OK well I should have expected a "measurement vs. audition" discussion in this thread 🙂
I would be sure to allow room for through-hole caps in critical locations, and also a breakout so that people can add their own front-end if they don't like the one from the ADC datasheet.
Regarding SMD construction, many people fear it, but really it is straightforward with a magnifier and a normal soldering iron (as long as PCB pads have been made a little bigger by the PCB designer). The biggest construction challenge here is that the ES982x ADC chips only come in a leadless package, making reflow the only option.
As mentioned before, please share your thoughts on whether this is an interesting idea. Perhaps I will do a rough calculation of the cost.
I would be sure to allow room for through-hole caps in critical locations, and also a breakout so that people can add their own front-end if they don't like the one from the ADC datasheet.
Regarding SMD construction, many people fear it, but really it is straightforward with a magnifier and a normal soldering iron (as long as PCB pads have been made a little bigger by the PCB designer). The biggest construction challenge here is that the ES982x ADC chips only come in a leadless package, making reflow the only option.
As mentioned before, please share your thoughts on whether this is an interesting idea. Perhaps I will do a rough calculation of the cost.
You posted files from 2 ADCs that most probably have very different performance which is the most likely reason for any difference in sound. Blindly changing parts may result in sound that you like but others don't. So why keep pushing your approach?
Once again you rush to wrong conclusion. Nobody claimed that measurements are the whole story. But without them it is all just a guessing game. And we all know by now that you prefer colourations and non-linearities. Other may have different preferences.
What does that say about the predictive value of your listening evaluations?
Last edited:
They use different parts, in different packages and have entirely different circuit layouts.
So, i would be very surprised if they sounded exactly the same.
It's not rocket science.
Of course, they don't sound identical.
And if you use your ears, chances are that you'll identify which one sounds superior to your set of ears.
That is why i posted not measurements, but actual recordings.
For folks that are curious and may be interested in how these two devices sound.
Not why, but how different they do sound.
And they decide on what they like or not.
There are a few people that are still interested in that i guess.
Last edited: